BIND Strikes Back Against VeriSign's Site Finder

BrunoC writes "Following the story about VeriSign's new Site Finder, the Internet Software Consortium promises to release a patch to its (in)famous BIND that will block the controversial Site Finder. Wired News has full coverage of the ISC initiative against this name resolving atrocity."

Comments

Re:Sqatting

[richie2000]

Oh well, it was bound to happen at some point...

The .nu domain registry has been doing this for years.

Is a Technology solution ALWAYS better than law?

[henley]

OK, I'm in favour of working-around the problem in classic

The internet interprets {badthing} as damage and routes around it

..fashion, and I'll be installing a patched bind whenever I can.

But I'm really concerned that this effectively lets VeriSign get away with it. They've bust everyone's trust folks, doesn't anyone care? This sort of activity in a social context (umm... let's see if we can construct a tortured metaphor: ...uhhh..: Your friend asks for your cousins's phone number and you instead give them the phone number of your shop. Reasonable?) would result in the perpetrator being ostracised fairly quickly, if not actually slapped about by a clue-by-four. It's flat out antisocial behaviour, never mind any legalities.

Here, since these buggers appear to hold us all over a barrel with the root domains, we can't just ignore them, and invoking legal recourses is at best slow and expensive. But what about appeal to the authorities that granted them those rights?

Um, the more I rant about this the closer I get to thinking a better solution is switching to an alternate root... Best head off to google again then, I know there's a way around this...

ISPs Will Soon Send You To Their Own Site

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs running DNS will certainly disallow this redirection to VeriSuck.

But soon thereafter, if not immediately, they'll start directing their customers to their own search site, or whatever search site they're paid to send them to. Or maybe some ISPs already do this?!

We need an RFC stating that this is not permissable.

Heh, maybe as a byproduct we'll see public DNS servers pop up. "Use us for free, but occasionally we will send you where /we/ want you to go."

Sign the online petition to get ICANN into action

[Anonymous Coward]

ICANN might be able to force VeriSign to get this off the net
http://www.petitiononline.com/icanndns/

use their T&C against them...

[Anonymous Coward]

as suggested by Abby Patel at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32872.html

However, it seems that the T&C's might help us to stop this abuse. If you do not agree to the T&C's the only option they have is to not redirect your netblock to their site. So, give them a call on 0800-032-2101, select 2 to speak to their support department and once you get a human, tell them that you don't agree to their T&C's and can they remove your netblocks!

So lets /. them and see how many netblocks they end up excluding.

Re:Good for BIND

[Joe U]

Then start running the new BIND and also contact your local Attorney General. I did.

Explain how they are in violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting laws, and have broken their contract with the Department of Commerce regarding the whois database. Mention how it's abuse of a monopoly power.

Make the states get involved, not the private attorneys.

Re:Is a Technology solution ALWAYS better than law

[Neil Watson]

I think the anology you are looking for is:

You dial a wrong number on your phone and a local telephone carrier answers and begins to try and sell you long distance and local services.